Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

61

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.54a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: December 02, 2012, 07:02:31 AM »

If they generated FP, first of all, that means you can have an infinite amount of command ships and a fleet that expands into infinity, wouldn't really work, even if they cost half of the FP they generate, that means that you can have another command ship in that extra 5 FP the other one unlocks, and that would also expand into infinity, if they were to cost more than that, they wouldn't have any good purpose and nobody would buy them,

That is true. At the same time, you'll have a practical supply/cargo limit to contend with (fuel as well once travel gets implemented). I get your point though, but there are technically other aspect of the mechanics that would limit the FP/ship count of fleet. Supply could be one of them. Eventually you'll be feeding crew at a rate too high to sustain with either by cargo capacity or sheer supply, uh, supply within game. Though granted, with the current numbers, that still won't really work. You'd get get a MASSIVE fleet before the supply issue gets truly impractical. (It's pretty generous at 100 crew/supply/day.)

But yeah, with current mechanics in place, it wouldn't work and I'm pretty aware of that fact. (It'd only work in other games that have a material cost for ships, kinda like Homeworld.) The only other option would be to make command ships VERY rare to buy, hard as hell to capture, and EXPENSIVE as crap to manufacture (with the blueprint being nuts to acquire in the first place).

BTW, LVL 60 would net you all (3) current Aptitudes maxed, but not all skills maxed. That's only ~120SP and there's more than 12 skills total... Plus the XP requirements past about LVL46 make it fairly impractical for all but hardcore players to attain higher levels. I myself am resorting to mods that introduce more factions and higher spawn rates to help mitigate that currently. Also, you do get passive SP per level. It's part of the system. 2SP/LVL, no? The FP thing I would go for is a minor one. 45FP @ LVL40 with no investment in Fleet Apts is kinda wrong. But I think 30-35FP at LVL40 is reasonable.

Lastly, did someone mention command ships that generate SP? I know I didn't. That'd be just utterly wrong...

62

Suggestions / Re: A "do not deploy" option in the fleet menu

« on: December 02, 2012, 02:35:44 AM »

There's actually a workaround for that: carry only enough crew to man your main combat ships and leave the rest unmanned. Unmanned ships never deploy. You also get the side benefit of using up less supply. I tend to keep my manning at or just above skeleton/minimum crew requirements. If I carry excess, it only just enough to help cover any losses I may take in a fight, but not enough to crew most ships if I capture any.

Looking forward into the future though, a "Keep Unmanned" option might be useful. (Same effect.)

63

Suggestions / Re: High Energy Focus - auto-deactivate would be nice

« on: December 02, 2012, 12:19:13 AM »

Couldn't you just have it so the HEF prevents passive flux dissipation in conjunction with all flux generated with HEF becoming Hard Flux?

This way, even with shields on, the upkeep for your shields would contribute to the hard flux build-up in addition to any weapons fire you do. In effect, you would have a similar mechanic like the hard flux generation that a phase ship has while phased. You can either go "naked" (no shield up) and only build up hard flux from weapons fire, or go in shielded with a "passive" hard flux build up equal to your shield upkeep in addition to weapons fire flux build up.

This should prevent excessive abuse of the HEF effect since you WILL eventually need to disengage and vent or turn it off. Otherwise, you risk getting overloaded very easily with shields on or pummeled with shields off (but not as bad as with the current +50 dmg taken penalty) or just not being about to DO/fire anything because you have too much flux stored.

Now, what the bonus to dmg output is up for debate. It's either this or the flux generated while under HEF is increase at a higher ratio than the damage bonus. (e.g. +50% EN DMG, +100% Flux Gen.) Or it could be a combination of the two. (Adding increased flux build up would curtail how long you can keep HEF in effect even more since you'd cap out your flux capacity faster.) If my first idea is used, it would make Stabilized Shields (and possibly Front Shield Emitter on applicable ships) even more useful for HEF-enabled ships (up to 75% less shield flux upkeep). Another thing to point out is that since you can have HEF and shields at the same time with my idea, you can leave shields on and activate/de-activate HEF at will without the current hassle when wanting to raise shields while HEF is engaged.

My in-game Hull Mod description [reasoning in brackets ^_~]:

-High Energy Focus - The ship's weapons system is re-routed and interconnected to the ship's shield flux banks in a closed feedback loop, providing a XX% bonus to energy weapon damage output. In return, all flux generated is hard flux [because the shield flux banks only handle hard flux]. The closed-loop nature of the connections prevent passive venting [closed loop = exhaust vents are used to re-route the flux back into the system]. {Optional, if using increase flux generation: The feedback from the connection causes weapons-fire to produce YY% more flux. [Because you are feeding the old flux back into the weapons systems]}

Oh! Or you can make so shields take more damage when HEF is on. (i.e. dmg/flux ratio is increased. Dunnno if it should be a fix number or a percentage... Probably a fixed number to offset some of the very low dmg/flux ratios some high-tech ships can get.) You'd get a more direct OFF vs DEF trade-off again, just not as drastic as the current one since it'd only affect shield damage. (And Hard Flux generation by extension.) Again, you could combine this with increased weapons flux generation to help further limit how long you could use HEF in combat. (This method should also make it easier for the AI to use as well.)

Now, the question is how would this plays into the original topic of this thread: making HEF auto-deactivate when using shields...? ^_^; (I feel like the thread has veered completely off its original purpose... Or at least is on a detour/tangent.)

64

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.54a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: December 01, 2012, 09:01:22 PM »

Isn't the current FP limit only 120?

25FP (Start) + 20FP (2x10) Fleet Aptitude Bonus + 50FP (5x10) Fleet Logistics (MAXED) + 25FP Coordinated Maneuvers (@LVL5)

Or was the prior discussion taking into account the 50% leeway before accidents come into play? (I'm assuming yes since the number stated are 37 and 180.)

Personally, rather than an abstracted Fleet Point limit system, I've always thought of integrating the fleet size limit into the basic history/mechanics of the game via required comm channels between vessels. Though it probably wouldn't work for Starfarer with the way it's currently set up. The tought would be that ships can either use up "Fleet Channels" or actually PROVIDE Fleet Channels. I.E. You can PURCHASE ships (Command Ships) that let you expand your fleet size (or "coordinate your fleet" in-universe). You can't trade off OP and other stats in return for the expanded fleet bonus.

Problem is it complicates the vessel deployment system for battles: would you NEED to deploy the command vessels in order to maximize your fleet deplyment in a fight? Or can you withold them to prevent their possible destruction in a fight? If you HAVE to deploy them, how would you revamp the deployment system in place now to take that into account? (I can SORTA imagine a way, but it's a bit complicated for me to explain right now...) It's this complication and conflict with the current system (plus balancing) that prevents me from making it a real suggestion.

Still, it WOULD be sorta nice to have some sort of PASSIVE FP gain simply from leveling up. Though an extra 20FP (Level 40 char, 1FP/2 LVLs) would be mildly OP for investor of solely Tech and Combat Aptitudes, so I understand the choice involved there to balance it out a bit. Combat aptitudes mainly make you a one-ship armada. Tech Aptitudes enhance a whole fleet (plus a few player-only bonuses). A Fleet/Tech build is completely viable, really. The current soft cap for levels only lets you truly pursue 2 aptitudes to master.

Though I'm thinking maybe a 1FP/4 LVLs bonus might be viable. Actually, WILL there be ANY passive bonus given to the play simply for leveling up? Or will the system be entirely base on point distribution? (I'm also kinda worried about the point distro once industry comes into play. Current point amounts work VERY well for building a force to be reckoned with. Once industry comes into play, that's another aptitude contending for points that, with 4 available aptitude to play with, will feel VERY limited/precious. Especially with the unlikely appearance of char respec'ing.)

Also, any chance there will be campaign missions/quests that either grant more player assignable APs/SPs or ones that will automatically level a specific, fixed skill (or freely assignable by the player, but limited to a specific aptitude)?

65

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.54a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: November 27, 2012, 05:21:54 PM »

[...] the downsides of an open paid beta [...]

We're not even that far yet. The game is still in alpha, afterall. Beta implies all of the main game is implemented and is under testing for bugs, tweaks, adjustments, balancing, and minor feature additions/changes.

As for the EXP thing: yes, it's fast up until you hit the soft level cap (the point where the EXP needed/level starts to sky rocket). My first char hit level 46. It will now take me ~20 Heg Def Fleets, killing ALL ships, to hit 47.

BTW, EXP is tied to fleet point cost. 1 FP = 250XP, for anyone curious. This is the reason why Heg Def and the various Supply fleets are the best things to stalk in the current "late game" (LVL 30 or so and up.) They have the highest base FP cost and are scheduled to appear consistently. (I've started judging my leveling rate as needing "X number of Y type fleets" instead of the raw XP required.) The start of the game levels you fairly well to get you started (Buffalo mk2 is completely living up to its purpose now, ain't it? ^_~) I think once more gameplay is added, the leveling will scale back and slow down once in the mid levels (like starting in the double digits.) On the other hand, it depends on how much content will be in the game and what Alex plans as an average single play session. Most of the JRPG's I've played do about 1 level for every 30 minutes of standard game play (i.e. no purposeful grinding, no avoiding every fight if possible.) They scale back once you hit the intended "end game level" you should be at to beat the game without TOO much difficulty. After that point, you need to find XP bonus multipliers, a hidden dungeon, or something along those lines to efficiently level grind.

Example: ToG:F for PS3 requires you to be either in the post-game bonus dungeon or in the end-game area of the epilogue story arc on MAX difficulty to max your char levels (200 in this game). If you didn't, it takes quite a while to max out. Funny enough, this doesn't take into account maxing your stats and skills, though. That was another, separate system. It ran in parallel to that standard leveling system.

Anyway, the level pacing in the current build is probably on purpose to help test skills: how strong they are, what level featurews should be available at, etc. Alex will probably revamp the skill system at some point for better balancing. Now would be a good time to get feedback on the basic system by letting players access the features quickly (especially without a respec function, so if you want to test out a different build, you need a brand new char to build up.)

It works for what thestate the game is in now. Never forget: the game is still under development and is nowhere near a finished product.

66

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.54a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: November 26, 2012, 02:33:33 AM »

Actually, Alex, will the AI have access to the same skill-set players do at some point? The enemy fleets seem static (i.e. vanilla/basic) compared tothe progession the player gets. I'm just wondering if the AI might get some of the skills in another version of the game depending on player level and/or location (once interstellar travel is implemented).

That's very likely. Having experienced (read: skilled, as in with various relevant skills) enemy captains seems like a good way to up the challenge - potentially dramatically - without resorting to having the enemies cheat or throw extremely large amounts of ships at you.

Oh, yay! I'm assuming EXP would scale with fleet captain/admiral "rank" (or level) for those that do have skills, right? Would they pull from the exact same skillset as the player? Or will they have access to unique skills, limited skills, or reduced bonus skills? I ask because I know of some games that give the AI only limited access to the same skillset as the player since the AI can react with no lag, making some skill combos kinda "broken" in AI hands.

Oh, and I just remembered what my forgotten question was: What will the EXP progression be like? Currently, I'm in the mid-40's. Going from 45 to 46 requires about 750k exp. The best EXP fight are Heg Def Fleets @ 40k-50k on average. Are you intending to make extreme high levels impractical or is this just a current side-effect of not having much of game implemented yet, so we're lacking sources of EXP from higher ranking sources (like the aforementioned "experienced enemy captains")? And in regards to EXP, is there a level cap? Or will this be like SPAZ where the level cap is only when the player decide to stop grinding? If it's tied to AP, I'm guessing the limit would be around the mid 70's from a practical viewpoint. (With only 4 aptitudes at 10 levels each, 40 AP is all you need to max them all, so level 80 would've been the absolute max for that. Lower since you have to account for starting points given to you.)

Lastly, will we be able to re-spec a character we've built up later? I sometimes want to try out new char builds, but don't necessarily like having to replay an entire game just to test out a char build. In-game, I can kinda see this as a special "memory adjustment service". Pay a price to have your char respec'ed, but you either have to forgo EXP for a little while while your "new memories" settle in or have a chance losing a level or two and the poins that go with them. (SPAZ had a in-game re-spec penalty of having to sacrifice new exp up to a set threshold before it starts counting towards your char progression again.)

67

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.54a (Released) Patch Notes

« on: November 25, 2012, 05:37:36 PM »

I wound up having to save-scum capturing a Patagon via Auto-battles once I got it alone. I know save-scumming is a curse word to some users, but that's beside the point. It';s the easiest way to get s rare ship in vanilla SF (i.e. without mods). I did it mainly to see how messed up a Paragon is with most of my offense-focused skill maxed: 525 OP, reduced-OP weapons, increased DMG, improved shields, etc.

As a previous post mentions, it can solo an entire Heg Def Fleet by itself. Not quite steamroll it, though it definitely feels like it during the initial wave of fighters and frigates.

Actually, Alex, will the AI have access to the same skill-set players do at some point? The enemy fleets seem static (i.e. vanilla/basic) compared tothe progession the player gets. I'm just wondering if the AI might get some of the skills in another version of the game depending on player level and/or location (once interstellar travel is implemented).

...There was something else I wanted to ask, but now I forgot...

68

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: November 18, 2012, 07:15:07 AM »

Your vets and elites may not learn more, but the rookies and recruits would learn a lot, won't they? They would learn how to proper accomplish tasks so they can actually do the same type of actions later. But it was just an idea I wanted to throw out there for later consideration, maybe. I just think skilled execution by the player in a battle should be tangibly rewarded somehow. It could be bonus XP, bonus multiplier to credits salvage, higher chances to board ships, higher equipment salvage chances, etc. Doesn't matter to me. I just want some incentive at also TRY my best when I technically don't have to.

If I can fly a 100FP fleet that can steamroll nearly every fleet it comes accross, it'd be nice to have some sort of in-game incentive to make me WANT to use, say, only 50FP instead. Self-motivation will only get players so far in games like this unless they have some form of in-game reward instead of or in addition to self-satisfaction.

But *shrug* It's not a major issue for me though. At least not yet. Gotta see how the end product will be before I will/can pass and judgement. I am anxious for 0.54a's release though ^_^; Especially with all these changes. It'll be like a whole new game!

69

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: November 17, 2012, 02:30:31 PM »

Campaign:

• Losing ships in combat gives bonus XP, if the fleet has more than 5 fleet points worth of ships
• Losing a battle gives double XP for that battle, if you fleet was worth more than 5 fleet points

In regards to this, you wouldn't happen to be considering other Bonus XP conditions, would you? Like say:

• XP bonus for defeating an opposing fleet while using only X% of your own forces' (or opposing fleet's) FP cost.
• XP bonus for getting through a FLEEING battle with all ships intact against a fleet with X times more FP worth.
• XP bonus for eliminating ALL opposing vessels of a FLEEING battle (Or perhaps a slightly better salvage chance for money/equipment?)
• XP bonus for taking no damage (other than shield damage) in a battle. Probably balanced against FP costs of the your fleet versus opposing fleet.

...And probably some other things I can't think of off-hand right now. Numbers are up in the air for those suggestions, of course. This to help reward players that go out of their way and display skill in combat.

Also, is there any possibility of making salvage/capture chances higher based on player performance in a fight? Like say in a fight, I manage to concentrate all my fire on the rear side of an enemy vessel. I've knocked out his engines several times during the fight and the rest of his ship is mostly intact save for the rear quadrant. I finally kill him while his engines are out and the rest of his ship is untouched. Wouldn't that make a capture attempt more likely to happen in the post battle? I'm not asking for a HUGH boost to chance, but just SOME sort of boost to reflect the skill and efforts of users in combat. Like if a ship only has a 1/100 chance of normally being capturable post-battle, doing certain things could boost it to like 1/50 chance.

Similar for undamaged weapons on enemy vessel for salvaging post-battle. (Maybe even for credits as well. I imagine there'd be more undamaged CPU cores to pull credits from if a player is very picky about targetting and leave a vessel mostly intact before disabling it.) You'd still have to farm battles, but drops and captures are SLIGHTLY skewed towards the players' benefit if they put the effort into it.

70

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: September 22, 2012, 01:10:02 AM »

I understand what you mean. However, since my play style is a bit more speed-based, the venting and speed go hand-in-hand for me on a couple ships due to how I outfit them (at least for human control. AI is another matter entirely.) I know that Flux Cap is a bit more important overall for Hi-tech ships, but since I rely a bit more on speed, I use my speed advantage to get in, unload, get out, vent (QUICKLY), repeat (dodge/evade as needed/possible).

A high Flux Cap with low Flux Vent is actually fairly detrimental when you finally do need to vent off built up flux, IMHO (and some experience). I honestly prefer flux venting over flux capacity in most of my builds. (I'm actually a bit opposite for my mid-/low-tech: I tend to prioritize flux cap for my low tech ships; they are designed to take armor hits better than hi-tech.) I like to stay in forced venting mode for as LITTLE as possible. As I recall, force venting [V-key] doubles your vent rate for the duration of the venting.

I find focusing on vent rate is a bit more offensive-oriented (venting flux as quickly as possible to offset the build up so you can fire more continuously, even at/near max flux cap.) Flux cap focus is more of something I use for my more defensive/tank designs. Though I will admit I'm making a very broad generalization about my play style. It depends on the ship and loadout as well. As an example, what you mentioned is perfectly valid and true when I'm sitting in my Paragon. On the flip side, I prefer vents over caps on my Hyperion.

Anyway, I do see your point.

71

Announcements / Re: Starfarer 0.54a (In Development) Patch Notes

« on: September 21, 2012, 11:03:55 PM »

Personally, as soon as I read the Flux hit for Aug Eng was swapped for 2x repair time on flame-outs, I was thrilled. Mind you, as others have apparently mentioned, some may not like the change. However, considering my play style - mobility: hit hard, fast (both speed-related), and as often as possible (for me, flux-related) - this is something of a godsend for me.

I tend to use Hi-tech ships (or any ship with a wide shield cover thanks to the blessed Fixed-Shield hullmod; makes some more ships viable for my play-style), so if I ever get a flameout, that's my own damn fault for not watching my butt like I'm supposed to (and normally do.) Hi-tech vessels practically live and die by the flux stats (well, at least IMHO with my play style), so I rarely took aug engines for my mainline combat ships unless the loadout I had on them was relatively gentle on the flux vents. (I did give all my freighters aug engines though, namely to help keep up my fleet speed on the sector map.)

Honestly, it could have been worse: Aug Engines could've made flame-out easier to achieve ^_~ Well, not really sure what would be worse:

• Flame-outs for twice as long at the current occurance rate (current change in/for 0.54a)

or

• Flame-outs at the current length, but twice as often (my above remark/comment)

72

Suggestions / Re: Hull Mod Proposal - Vectored Thrust

« on: August 18, 2012, 08:30:11 PM »

Is it just an acceleration rate setting for the strafe stat? (I don't mess with the actual code much, even though I know it's mostly human-readable/accessible.) That would explain a bit, actually. That would just make my idea just set the strafe acceleration rate to match the cruise accel rate if that's the case. Not much balancing needed there. Could just make cost about as much as Aux Thrusters in OP.

73

Suggestions / Re: Hull Mod Proposal - Vectored Thrust

« on: August 18, 2012, 05:54:55 PM »

Couldnt you just strafe to your target instead of just driving there normally? Would be just a normal speed boost.

ohhhhhh,

the fond memories of X3:R and X3:TC where capitals fly faster using their strafe drives rather than their main engines.

Ah, yes, I recall that as well. I haven't touched those games in awhile because the UI is so... cumbersome now. Especially when you consider stuff like XTM.

though really, i dont see why the top speed needs to be nerfed and why we can't just have aux thrusters also just increase strafe speed.

There is that. You'd just need to change (increase) the OP cost appropriately and add the desired strafe speed boost.

On the flip side, I'd like to to be a bit more modular so you don't waste OP on a feature you don't really want or need. (Turn rate vs Lateral Speed). Having a separate hull mod makes it more flexible, but I see where you're coming from. I never considered that approach for my idea.

As for the max speed nerf: that's just an idea to help balance the more viable use of strafing if vectored thrust speed = max speed. The original idea was thus:

"Vectored Engines: Vectored nozzles are installed to your ship's main engines. All engine output is available for strafing, though the installation of the nozzles decrease overall output."

I guess another way would be to make Strafe Speed = Max speed, but make it an expensive mod, like Heavy Armor or Aug Engines. Though I would fear some frigates more than I already do at times... (Elite Tempests...) Then again, the increase in OP cost comapred to my original idea could balance that out well enough, huh?

Couldnt you just strafe to your target instead of just driving there normally? Would be just a normal speed boost.

The strafe speed on something like a Paragon is like only 5-10. It's barely noticeable at all. Also, it doesn't seem to stack over the max speed of a ship anyway. Unless you meant while having the hull mod? I wouldn't want strafe speed to exceed cruise speeds, though that would make for some awesome (and perhaps hilarious) Conquest builds, no? (Can you image a Conquest with both Aux Thrusters, some form of Vectored Thrusterss, and its Maneuvering Jets coasting along, always sideways? Perpetual broadsides!)

Just keep in mind that even if you could strafe faster than you can cruise, which way you're facing while moving does matter (weapon arcs. Shield arcs too, for frontal types.)

74

Suggestions / Hull Mod Proposal - Vectored Thrust

« on: August 18, 2012, 04:32:02 PM »

Does anyone else feel like strafing in SF is a bit... underwelming? It works all right for smaller, faster ships (I think. It's been a while since I bothered since it's just faster and easier to just turn and burn instead.) But it's pretty useless for larger ships, though I can sorta understand why. So here is my proposal for a new Hull Mod:

"Vectored Thrust Engines - Some of the ship's main engine thrust output is redirected to side exhaust ports, increasing lateral (strafe) speed at the cost of cruising (forward/reverse) speeds."

I was originally thinking of a 33% - 50% decrease to top speed, but your strafe speed would match your new top speed. Cost in OP would be somewhere between Aux Thrusters and Augmented Engines. But thinking back on it, I'm not sure if that's very balanced or not. My other idea for balancing it would be like a 10%-25% top speed decrease and loss of like 10% flux venting capacity for maybe a 50% increase in strafe speed. ("Some flux vents on the ships are now used as engine exhaust nozzles, increasing lateral speeds.")

Or some other combination of numbers for buff (strafe speed) and nerf (top speed or even vent rate, like Aug Engines.) Maybe even use per-class/size numbers (like Aug Engines' speed boost: a flat +40/+30/+20/+10 depending on hull size/class). Half the reason I'm submitting this idea is for feedback on balancing it. Please don't take the number I just pulled off the top of my head here as serious suggestions for the actual buff/nerf numbers. They are simply examples to give you a rough idea of what I had in mind for effects with the hull mod.

Thoughts and (hopefully constructive...) criticisms?

75

Suggestions / Re: Building Shipyards

« on: August 18, 2012, 12:58:00 PM »

Couldn't you just say you ound an autofactory? No one said the only way to "acquire" one wad to build it, right? Considering what little I know of the game lore, isn't there the possibility of some autofactories being "lost" and inactive?

Also, it was never said how autofactories are designed, no? Are they planet-based? Massive space stations? Mobile motherships (think Homeworld)? Hollowed out asteroids? From what I know, an autofactory can be any one of those anywhere in the game world.

I'm pretty sure there can be a side-quest where you work towards getting your own factory/shipyard without breaking lore (hell, you could build on top of the lore.)

"February 29th of the 2xx Cycle: We've just arrived in new, mostly uncharted territory while attempting to escape the Hegemony's reach. There's not much here, but the few stations we have stopped at for supplies seem to repeat a single rumor: this area of space has an undisovered but function autofactory. It could be a wild goose chase, but if true, it would tip the scales in our favor against the Hegemony forces looking for us. It will take them some time for them to find us without spreading themsleves thin. For now, we have time on our side..."

"March 7 of the 2xx Cycle: There seems to be credible fact backing up the rumors of an autofactory existing in the area. Associated rumors point to a single source of the autofactory story: a prospector-scout ship had transmitted a partial message announcing the discovery before being lost. We're on our way to talk to others who are willing to sell up information regarding that ship and its planned survey course."

"March 22nd of the 2xx Cycle: After two weeks of searching, we've found the scout ship. So that rumor is true. However, the ship has been derelict for some time. All the crew were dead. The ship was damaged from weapons' fire none of us have seen before. It must've lost power, killing the crew slowly. Unfortunately, the ship had been adrift for some time and wasn't located near anything we could consider a location of an autofactory. We were able to retrieve the scout ship's datalog recorder. It's being decoded now, though it did take some damage. In the meantime, the navigators are trying to extrapolation and backtrack the ships' drift course. They should have something by the end of the day."

Should I bother to continue this "story"?